The Colts GM paniced and showed his inexperience and lack of knowledge of the NFL and it's players...taken to the cleaners...he's set them back a few years...with this, the deepest draft in years?...WHAT A FOOL!

Wow Melly - you should be inside a war room, then. An exec of the year in 2012 set the colts back? His roster moves (80% turnover) took the team from 2-14 to 11-5, twice. Quite a set back.

Better yet, that couch in your mom's basement is a much better place for you.

Unfortunately, it's a couch in my living room in a 10th floor condo in Brookline MA, overlooking Coolidge Corner...if you know the area it's VERY nice...

Not like living in KKK infested Indiana, rooting for a team owned by a drunken sot who can't control himself...

Now...back to the issue at hand....The trade was and IS a disaster for the Colts...with an aging and injured wr, a key to their performance, the loss of such draft capital in a year when the draft is extremely deep (as I can attest to watching the combine these past few days)., your boys will hurt this year ...they now have competition in their division...they won't finish first, they may not make the playoffs...LMFAO...

Go colties...LMFAO!

LOL- Smelly. The Klan is all over your state of residence. For all I know, you may be a part of it given your frequent postings about it.

as for your prognostications - they have been so wrong so frequently, that your current ones about the colts give me comfort. You'd think that with your parents taking care of you in their nice condo and having all of that time to watch the combine and NFL related media that you'd be better than you are. Its a shame, really.

And tell me...just how do you know so much about the KKK being in MA? You must be a regular on the KKK newsletter...LOL......There have been entire books written about the KKK owning Indiana..in fact, it's the o-n-l-y STATE EVER FULLY CONTROLLED BY THE KKK... Just do a search on Google...Nice try...

, Since 2000, 10 QB's were taken #1. No team did what the colts did with their rookie QB. There are other factors involved.

RESPONSE: Just goes to show how stats can be manipulated to butress a bogus point. Of the 10 previous QBs taken since 2000 in the first round, none was as highly touted (and for good reason) as Luck. Luck was the best QB prospect since that Horsefaced choke artist, who now plays in Denver, was selected.

Grigson has turned over 80% of the roster because like you said, everyone else sucked. He had to find players that were available that did not suck, and he did. That's why he won exec of the year.

RESPONSE: Grigson did a decent job. But the main reason for the Colts resurgence came about due to the team tanking the 2011 season. Grigson should get no credit for taking Luck. He was the consensus #1 overall pick in 2012. I do credit him for finding better players than the Colts had in 2011. But, that shouldn't have resulted in him being named "Executive of the Year". today, I would like to have the pick, but again, I am not going to kill the guy for making the trade. The colts have gone 11-5 over the past 2 years, and if this is his only mistake during that time, then he deserves more than a pass.

And what I said about the trade is if I am only allowed to look at his 2013 production then it was a bad trade, but he's got more time to prove his worth. What I said is lets wait. I am sure that you'll take my comments out of context in the future. That's your MO.

RESPONSE: Oh really? Re-read your own words, Gomez: "today, I would like to have the pick, but again, I am not going to kill the guy for making the trade." The colts have gone 11-5 over the past 2 years, and if this is his only mistake during that time, then he deserves more than a pass.

RESPONSE: Grigson deserves "more than a pass" for trading away his #1 pick in 2014 for a bust, who is he second coming of Ron Dayne?? Uh...okay.

LOL!!!

How's his team done since he arrived? What was the team's record the year before he showed up?

RESPONSE: You're obviously in denial, Gomez.

Trading away #26

RESPONSE: Are you seriously arguing that pick #26 overall is worthless?? We already know that Richardson is worthless.

From 2000-2008 only 50% of the players taken with the last 10 picks in the first round started more than 4 years in the league. 32% started less than 3 years.

RESPONSE: How many years has Richardson started? Please cite where you are getting these stats.

Giving a future 1st rounder in the last 10 for the possibility of getting a great running back is not a bad thing.

RESPONSE: It's a horrible thing when it doesn't pan out. Again, "some" of us here told you so when the deal went down.

Again - it was a future first. That likely puts the pick value somewhere in the second round, and I'd imagine the success of second rounders is even lower than those taken in the bottom of the first round?

RESPONSE: Laughable! The greatest offseason asset that a team has is it's #1 draft choice. The #1 draft choice can provide the "possibility" of a great player.

Look, I know you want to make this as horrible as you can, but it just isn't.

RESPONSE: This argument of yours is absurd. Here's a quick list of some of the good-very good players taken late in the first round through round 2, from 2006-12. I guess your Colts couldn't use any of these guys:

The Colts GM paniced and showed his inexperience and lack of knowledge of the NFL and it's players...taken to the cleaners...he's set them back a few years...with this, the deepest draft in years?...WHAT A FOOL!

Wow Melly - you should be inside a war room, then. An exec of the year in 2012 set the colts back? His roster moves (80% turnover) took the team from 2-14 to 11-5, twice. Quite a set back.

Better yet, that couch in your mom's basement is a much better place for you.

Unfortunately, it's a couch in my living room in a 10th floor condo in Brookline MA, overlooking Coolidge Corner...if you know the area it's VERY nice...

Not like living in KKK infested Indiana, rooting for a team owned by a drunken sot who can't control himself...

Now...back to the issue at hand....The trade was and IS a disaster for the Colts...with an aging and injured wr, a key to their performance, the loss of such draft capital in a year when the draft is extremely deep (as I can attest to watching the combine these past few days)., your boys will hurt this year ...they now have competition in their division...they won't finish first, they may not make the playoffs...LMFAO...

Go colties...LMFAO!

LOL- Smelly. The Klan is all over your state of residence. For all I know, you may be a part of it given your frequent postings about it.

as for your prognostications - they have been so wrong so frequently, that your current ones about the colts give me comfort. You'd think that with your parents taking care of you in their nice condo and having all of that time to watch the combine and NFL related media that you'd be better than you are. Its a shame, really.

And tell me...just how do you know so much about the KKK being in MA? You must be a regular on the KKK newsletter...LOL......There have been entire books written about the KKK owning Indiana..in fact, it's the o-n-l-y STATE EVER FULLY CONTROLLED BY THE KKK... Just do a search on Google...Nice try...

Another HUGE loss placed on Uddies doorstep

Go Colties...BWAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!

LOL!!!!!!!!!! That's AWESOME!! If my daughter ever returns home after college, I'll have to say "you must be retired".

I googled KKK in Massachusettes. Maybe you are an old goat. A youngster never would have asked that question. At any rate, let the trash continue to drool from your mouth. Its the offseason and given where Indy was and how far they've come, the needle is pointing in a better direction for them than your pats. That's fo sho.

, Since 2000, 10 QB's were taken #1. No team did what the colts did with their rookie QB. There are other factors involved.

RESPONSE: Just goes to show how stats can be manipulated to butress a bogus point. Of the 10 previous QBs taken since 2000 in the first round, none was as highly touted (and for good reason) as Luck. Luck was the best QB prospect since that Horsefaced choke artist, who now plays in Denver, was selected.

Grigson has turned over 80% of the roster because like you said, everyone else sucked. He had to find players that were available that did not suck, and he did. That's why he won exec of the year.

RESPONSE: Grigson did a decent job. But the main reason for the Colts resurgence came about due to the team tanking the 2011 season. Grigson should get no credit for taking Luck. He was the consensus #1 overall pick in 2012. I do credit him for finding better players than the Colts had in 2011. But, that shouldn't have resulted in him being named "Executive of the Year". today, I would like to have the pick, but again, I am not going to kill the guy for making the trade. The colts have gone 11-5 over the past 2 years, and if this is his only mistake during that time, then he deserves more than a pass.

And what I said about the trade is if I am only allowed to look at his 2013 production then it was a bad trade, but he's got more time to prove his worth. What I said is lets wait. I am sure that you'll take my comments out of context in the future. That's your MO.

RESPONSE: Oh really? Re-read your own words, Gomez: "today, I would like to have the pick, but again, I am not going to kill the guy for making the trade." The colts have gone 11-5 over the past 2 years, and if this is his only mistake during that time, then he deserves more than a pass.

RESPONSE: Grigson deserves "more than a pass" for trading away his #1 pick in 2014 for a bust, who is he second coming of Ron Dayne?? Uh...okay.

LOL!!!

How's his team done since he arrived? What was the team's record the year before he showed up?

RESPONSE: Are you seriously arguing that pick #26 overall is worthless?? We already know that Richardson is worthless. (did I say it was worthless. are you seriously trying AGAIN to put words in my mouth? - answer: yes)

From 2000-2008 only 50% of the players taken with the last 10 picks in the first round started more than 4 years in the league. 32% started less than 3 years.

RESPONSE: How many years has Richardson started? Please cite where you are getting these stats. (stats came from Pro-football-reference.com. The point isn't the # of years richardson started, but that the last 10 picks in the first round only really pan out about half the time and 32 % of them are real busts. So giving up a FUTURE {that's important} #26 pick isn't the end all.)

Giving a future 1st rounder in the last 10 for the possibility of getting a great running back is not a bad thing.

RESPONSE: It's a horrible thing when it doesn't pan out. Again, "some" of us here told you so when the deal went down. (not necessarily as noted above. 1/3 of all players taken in the last 10 of the first don't even start more than 2 years. You can bluster all you want about this but the statistics don't support you.)

Again - it was a future first. That likely puts the pick value somewhere in the second round, and I'd imagine the success of second rounders is even lower than those taken in the bottom of the first round?

RESPONSE: Laughable! The greatest offseason asset that a team has is it's #1 draft choice. The #1 draft choice can provide the "possibility" of a great player. (that is not true based on the stats I provided. The possibility of a great player is more likely higher in the round which the colts did not have due to their record. Why do you think Belichick trades out of the first all of the time? 1) to get more picks and find better value in lower rounds. He probably does this because he knows {as the stats show} that late first round picks are no guarantee of success. 50/50 chance at best.

Look, I know you want to make this as horrible as you can, but it just isn't.

RESPONSE: This argument of yours is absurd. Here's a quick list of some of the good-very good players taken late in the first round through round 2, from 2006-12. I guess your Colts couldn't use any of these guys:

First of all, I only went to 2008 because I didn't want to taint the sample (I could only imagine the field day you'd have with that). And I never said that late first round picks were never valuable. I said only 50% of them were. So you can cite all of the players you like. It doesn't change the stats I provided. From 2000 to 2008 only 50% of the players taken with the last 10 picks of the first round started more than 4 years. The question ultimately is this - do you think taking trent richardson is a better option than flipping a coin on a prospect. The colts chose richardson. His first year here it turned out that the coin flip would have been better, but he's allowed more time to prove his value. No one would say Donald Brown (one of those taken in the last 10 of the first) was worth the pick, but he was valuable this year (his 5th) even if he wasn't the starter

[/QUOTE]

Gomez...what say you??...LOL!! (I'd say I have tried and tasted your argument and it was a culinary failure).

Let me add to this:

In your example above, you listed 7 years of players you deem as successful. Of those 7 years, you listed only 14 taken in the first round. Assuming you started with pick 26 (the colts pick), there were 49 picks from 26-32 over that 7 years, yet you only listed 14 (29%) taken in the first round.

Your own evaluation supports my argument. If there is only a 29% guarantee of success (by your standards) of picks taken from 26-32, then why not trade that future pick for the possibility of a great running back? I am not saying you are wrong (that Richardson will be a bust), but there's enough time to find out. If you are willing to identify Donald Brown as a successful player (you did), then the colts have another 3 years to find out if Richardson was worth the pick.

Richardson in 2 years has been the primary starter on his teams both years. In 5 years, Brown has been the primary starter maybe once. Pro-Football-Reference tries to define the value of a player. They defined Richardson's value better than Brown's this year. By some measure (including yours) Richardson is already more successful than Brown.

Thanks for validating my argument.

One final note - you note a number of successful players taken in the second round. This further proves my point. If drafting were so scientific that it could guarantee the success of the players taken, then none of the second round players you mentioned would have been taken that late. To further this point - If the 2000 draft were redrafted this year would the pats have Tom Brady - no. He would have been the first player taken. The draft is a crapshoot and teams are frequently wrong about players. The colts thought they had something more sure in taking Richardson. I understand the mentality. If you don't, this may be too complicated for you to understand.

RESPONSE: Are you seriously arguing that pick #26 overall is worthless?? We already know that Richardson is worthless. (did I say it was worthless. are you seriously trying AGAIN to put words in my mouth? - answer: yes)

From 2000-2008 only 50% of the players taken with the last 10 picks in the first round started more than 4 years in the league. 32% started less than 3 years.

RESPONSE: How many years has Richardson started? Please cite where you are getting these stats. (stats came from Pro-football-reference.com. The point isn't the # of years richardson started, but that the last 10 picks in the first round only really pan out about half the time and 32 % of them are real busts. So giving up a FUTURE {that's important} #26 pick isn't the end all.)

Giving a future 1st rounder in the last 10 for the possibility of getting a great running back is not a bad thing.

RESPONSE: It's a horrible thing when it doesn't pan out. Again, "some" of us here told you so when the deal went down. (not necessarily as noted above. 1/3 of all players taken in the last 10 of the first don't even start more than 2 years. You can bluster all you want about this but the statistics don't support you.)

Again - it was a future first. That likely puts the pick value somewhere in the second round, and I'd imagine the success of second rounders is even lower than those taken in the bottom of the first round?

RESPONSE: Laughable! The greatest offseason asset that a team has is it's #1 draft choice. The #1 draft choice can provide the "possibility" of a great player. (that is not true based on the stats I provided. The possibility of a great player is more likely higher in the round which the colts did not have due to their record. Why do you think Belichick trades out of the first all of the time? 1) to get more picks and find better value in lower rounds. He probably does this because he knows {as the stats show} that late first round picks are no guarantee of success. 50/50 chance at best.

Look, I know you want to make this as horrible as you can, but it just isn't.

RESPONSE: This argument of yours is absurd. Here's a quick list of some of the good-very good players taken late in the first round through round 2, from 2006-12. I guess your Colts couldn't use any of these guys:

First of all, I only went to 2008 because I didn't want to taint the sample (I could only imagine the field day you'd have with that). And I never said that late first round picks were never valuable. I said only 50% of them were. So you can cite all of the players you like. It doesn't change the stats I provided. From 2000 to 2008 only 50% of the players taken with the last 10 picks of the first round started more than 4 years. The question ultimately is this - do you think taking trent richardson is a better option than flipping a coin on a prospect. The colts chose richardson. His first year here it turned out that the coin flip would have been better, but he's allowed more time to prove his value. No one would say Donald Brown (one of those taken in the last 10 of the first) was worth the pick, but he was valuable this year (his 5th) even if he wasn't the starter

Gomez...what say you??...LOL!! (I'd say I have tried and tasted your argument and it was a culinary failure).

I've asked before...and now I'll ask again. Where are you getting your stats from? Do you have a cite?

As to your posed question, "Do I think taking Richardson was a better option then flipping a coin on a prospect"?...I reject the premise. When the Colts traded their #1 pick in 2014, they gave up the most valuable commodity they had to improve their team in the offseason.

From the get-go, I criticized this move. Richardson had already shown that he was "ordinary", as Jim Brown correctly discribed him, in his brief time in Cleveland. You don't trade a #1 pick for a RB who is "ordinary", at best. Nor is using a #1 pick on a RB wise. You like stats? Go check the stats on all the good to great RBs that have been acquired in later rounds, or as undrafted free agents. But Grigson was desperate for a RB to improve his offense, and vastly overpaid for a name. If he had traded say, a 3rd-4th round pick for Trent, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

As for Donald Brown, he failed to meet the expectations of a #1 draft choice. Over time, he's made himself into a servicable player. So, now you're hoping for a similar return out of Richardson? They are completely different players. Brown is more versatile. He is more of a 3rd down RB than an every down RB. He's not what Joe Addai was. Richardson is a power RB. But, his average speed, poor vision, and lack of explosiveness in hitting a hole makes him "ordinary", at best.

Why didn't Indy see this before the trade was made? The Browns saw it. Jim Brown saw it. Face it Gomez. Grigson didn't do his homework. He dropped the ball on this one...much like Trent Richardson did in the play-offs.

RESPONSE: Are you seriously arguing that pick #26 overall is worthless?? We already know that Richardson is worthless. (did I say it was worthless. are you seriously trying AGAIN to put words in my mouth? - answer: yes)

From 2000-2008 only 50% of the players taken with the last 10 picks in the first round started more than 4 years in the league. 32% started less than 3 years.

RESPONSE: How many years has Richardson started? Please cite where you are getting these stats. (stats came from Pro-football-reference.com. The point isn't the # of years richardson started, but that the last 10 picks in the first round only really pan out about half the time and 32 % of them are real busts. So giving up a FUTURE {that's important} #26 pick isn't the end all.)

Giving a future 1st rounder in the last 10 for the possibility of getting a great running back is not a bad thing.

RESPONSE: It's a horrible thing when it doesn't pan out. Again, "some" of us here told you so when the deal went down. (not necessarily as noted above. 1/3 of all players taken in the last 10 of the first don't even start more than 2 years. You can bluster all you want about this but the statistics don't support you.)

Again - it was a future first. That likely puts the pick value somewhere in the second round, and I'd imagine the success of second rounders is even lower than those taken in the bottom of the first round?

RESPONSE: Laughable! The greatest offseason asset that a team has is it's #1 draft choice. The #1 draft choice can provide the "possibility" of a great player. (that is not true based on the stats I provided. The possibility of a great player is more likely higher in the round which the colts did not have due to their record. Why do you think Belichick trades out of the first all of the time? 1) to get more picks and find better value in lower rounds. He probably does this because he knows {as the stats show} that late first round picks are no guarantee of success. 50/50 chance at best.

Look, I know you want to make this as horrible as you can, but it just isn't.

RESPONSE: This argument of yours is absurd. Here's a quick list of some of the good-very good players taken late in the first round through round 2, from 2006-12. I guess your Colts couldn't use any of these guys:

First of all, I only went to 2008 because I didn't want to taint the sample (I could only imagine the field day you'd have with that). And I never said that late first round picks were never valuable. I said only 50% of them were. So you can cite all of the players you like. It doesn't change the stats I provided. From 2000 to 2008 only 50% of the players taken with the last 10 picks of the first round started more than 4 years. The question ultimately is this - do you think taking trent richardson is a better option than flipping a coin on a prospect. The colts chose richardson. His first year here it turned out that the coin flip would have been better, but he's allowed more time to prove his value. No one would say Donald Brown (one of those taken in the last 10 of the first) was worth the pick, but he was valuable this year (his 5th) even if he wasn't the starter

Gomez...what say you??...LOL!! (I'd say I have tried and tasted your argument and it was a culinary failure).

I've asked before...and now I'll ask again. Where are you getting your stats from? Do you have a cite?

Did you read????? Go back above and look. I pulled the stats from pro-football-reference. Come on.

As to your posed question, "Do I think taking Richardson was a better option then flipping a coin on a prospect"?...I reject the premise. When the Colts traded their #1 pick in 2014, they gave up the most valuable commodity they had to improve their team in the offseason.

Not necessarily. They believed that Richardson was worth that pick both financially and from a current need. In 4 years Donald Brown proved nothing for the colts. His best year was this year and only after the Colts acquired Richardson. Vick Ballard went down in the first game, Bradshaw went down in the third game. They acquired Richardson after the second game, so they had him for almost an entire year at no cost while fulfilling a need. That FUTURE asset meant nothing to the colts in 2013, but they got value out of Richardson for it. Richardson helped the team to an 11-5 record. Those facts can't be disputed, but the value of the actual pick can be disputed because as I noted, the pick guarantees nothing. Its a coin flip as to whether or not it turns out to be valuable.

From the get-go, I criticized this move. Richardson had already shown that he was "ordinary", as Jim Brown correctly discribed him, in his brief time in Cleveland. You don't trade a #1 pick for a RB who is "ordinary", at best. Nor is using a #1 pick on a RB wise. You like stats? Go check the stats on all the good to great RBs that have been acquired in later rounds, or as undrafted free agents. But Grigson was desperate for a RB to improve his offense, and vastly overpaid for a name. If he had traded say, a 3rd-4th round pick for Trent, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Your perspective is fine, and you did say this from the start. Your perspective is not gospel. If it were, you'd be in a draft room in a couple of months. you're not. Grigson was desparate for a running back, and he got one that he felt could make a difference. Given that he got him for almost an entire year for nothing makes the pick he gave up worth about a late second rounder. As it stands now, if Richardson pans out for the equivalent of a late second rounder then it was a valuable pick.

As for Donald Brown, he failed to meet the expectations of a #1 draft choice. Over time, he's made himself into a servicable player. So, now you're hoping for a similar return out of Richardson? They are completely different players. Brown is more versatile. He is more of a 3rd down RB than an every down RB. He's not what Joe Addai was. Richardson is a power RB. But, his average speed, poor vision, and lack of explosiveness in hitting a hole makes him "ordinary", at best.

But you listed Brown as a successful player. You can't have it both ways. Either he is or isn't. If you've defined Brown as a successful player and Richardson performs to his level, then the pick was more than worth it. Brown was taken at the end of the first. Given the future first given up for Richardson, it equates to probably a late second rounder. The colts got more value from a pick perspective alone out of Richardson than out of their pick for Brown. As it stands now, Richardson is a better pick than Brown and you consider Brown successful. So you are contradicting yourself.

Why didn't Indy see this before the trade was made? The Browns saw it. Jim Brown saw it. Face it Gomez. Grigson didn't do his homework. He dropped the ball on this one...much like Trent Richardson did in the play-offs.

Why didn't Belichick and Kraft see Hernandez as a murderer? Who knows? He saw value. When a GM is 100% successful in their personnel evaluations, then your criticism is valid. They haven't been, nor will they ever be. Grigson's move helped the colts to an 11-5 record (10-4 with Richardson). As it stands today, the colts had success, Richardson was mediocre but a part of that success. Grigson's decision cannot be thoughtfully criticized yet.

PS - you've missed a couple of my posts on which I'd like you to comment.

I'm tired of going around he block with you on this Richardson debacle. At this point, we're both just repeating ourselves. Argue whatever you like. But, I challenge you to find anyone other than Grigson who agrees with you. This trade was a disaster for the Colts. They got NOTHING out of Richardson this past year. He was so bad that he had to be benched.

As for Brown, I've hardly contradicted myself. As a first round draft choice, he was a bust. By your own admission, it took him four years to start producing anything substantial. He's a third down back...nothing more. He's failed to meet the lofty expectations the Colts had for him, as the next Joe Addai.

Now, the Colts are in a position where they'll have to overpay Brown to keep him...or they'll lose him for nothing as an UFA.

PS - you've missed a couple of my posts on which I'd like you to comment.

I'm tired of going around he block with you on this Richardson debacle. At this point, we're both just repeating ourselves. Argue whatever you like. But, I challenge you to find anyone other than Grigson who agrees with you. This trade was a disaster for the Colts. They got NOTHING out of Richardson this past year. He was so bad that he had to be benched.

As for Brown, I've hardly contradicted myself. As a first round draft choice, he was a bust. By your own admission, it took him four years to start producing anything substantial. He's a third down back...nothing more. He's failed to meet the lofty expectations the Colts had for him, as the next Joe Addai.

Now, the Colts are in a position where they'll have to overpay Brown to keep him...or they'll lose him for nothing as an UFA.

Of course you're tired of it. I've provided a cogent, stat supported response to your argument. You cornered and contradicted yourself by identifying only 29% of the picks taken from 26-32 as successful (worse than my stats) and by identifying Donald Brown as a successful player.

The only support you have for your argument is hindsight. Hindsight says Richardson didn't have a very effective year. Hindsight, however, also tells us that by your own analysis that there would have been a 30% chance of the colts selecting a successful player. By your own statement, Richardson was a slam dunk.

If, as you now say, Donald Brown was a bust, why did you list him as a successful player the colts would have been better off using their 26th pick on than getting Richardson. That was your argument. Come on TP - you're better than this. Now if you're saying Brown is a bust then you've only identified 13 players taken from 26-32 out of 49 as successful (a 27% outcome). By your standards nearly 3 out of every 4 players taken from 26-32 are not successful. By any stretch that means using that FUTURE pick for Richardson was a slam dunk.

Thanks again TP - You've defended the Grigson trade again. I don't need to argue anything you do it for me. LOL!!!!

PS - you've missed a couple of my posts on which I'd like you to comment.

I'm tired of going around he block with you on this Richardson debacle. At this point, we're both just repeating ourselves. Argue whatever you like. But, I challenge you to find anyone other than Grigson who agrees with you. This trade was a disaster for the Colts. They got NOTHING out of Richardson this past year. He was so bad that he had to be benched.

As for Brown, I've hardly contradicted myself. As a first round draft choice, he was a bust. By your own admission, it took him four years to start producing anything substantial. He's a third down back...nothing more. He's failed to meet the lofty expectations the Colts had for him, as the next Joe Addai.

Now, the Colts are in a position where they'll have to overpay Brown to keep him...or they'll lose him for nothing as an UFA.

Of course you're tired of it. I've provided a cogent, stat supported response to your argument. You cornered and contradicted yourself by identifying only 29% of the picks taken from 26-32 as successful (worse than my stats) and by identifying Donald Brown as a successful player.

The only support you have for your argument is hindsight. Hindsight says Richardson didn't have a very effective year. Hindsight, however, also tells us that by your own analysis that there would have been a 30% chance of the colts selecting a successful player. By your own statement, Richardson was a slam dunk.

If, as you now say, Donald Brown was a bust, why did you list him as a successful player the colts would have been better off using their 26th pick on than getting Richardson. That was your argument. Come on TP - you're better than this. Now if you're saying Brown is a bust then you've only identified 13 players taken from 26-32 out of 49 as successful (a 27% outcome). By your standards nearly 3 out of every 4 players taken from 26-32 are not successful. By any stretch that means using that FUTURE pick for Richardson was a slam dunk.

Thanks again TP - You've defended the Grigson trade again. I don't need to argue anything you do it for me. LOL!!!!

PS - you've missed a couple of my posts on which I'd like you to comment.

I'm tired of going around he block with you on this Richardson debacle. At this point, we're both just repeating ourselves. Argue whatever you like. But, I challenge you to find anyone other than Grigson who agrees with you. This trade was a disaster for the Colts. They got NOTHING out of Richardson this past year. He was so bad that he had to be benched.

As for Brown, I've hardly contradicted myself. As a first round draft choice, he was a bust. By your own admission, it took him four years to start producing anything substantial. He's a third down back...nothing more. He's failed to meet the lofty expectations the Colts had for him, as the next Joe Addai.

Now, the Colts are in a position where they'll have to overpay Brown to keep him...or they'll lose him for nothing as an UFA.

Of course you're tired of it. I've provided a cogent, stat supported response to your argument. You cornered and contradicted yourself by identifying only 29% of the picks taken from 26-32 as successful (worse than my stats) and by identifying Donald Brown as a successful player.

The only support you have for your argument is hindsight. Hindsight says Richardson didn't have a very effective year. Hindsight, however, also tells us that by your own analysis that there would have been a 30% chance of the colts selecting a successful player. By your own statement, Richardson was a slam dunk.

If, as you now say, Donald Brown was a bust, why did you list him as a successful player the colts would have been better off using their 26th pick on than getting Richardson. That was your argument. Come on TP - you're better than this. Now if you're saying Brown is a bust then you've only identified 13 players taken from 26-32 out of 49 as successful (a 27% outcome). By your standards nearly 3 out of every 4 players taken from 26-32 are not successful. By any stretch that means using that FUTURE pick for Richardson was a slam dunk.

Thanks again TP - You've defended the Grigson trade again. I don't need to argue anything you do it for me. LOL!!!!

TP - I accept that Richardson had a bad season and in hindsight and based on that information alone, it doesn't look like a good decision. I've said that. But given your criteria, the colts had about a 25% chance to select a successful player. A 25% chance of a successful pick vs. the possiblility that Richardson would pan out AND they got him for 90% of 2013 at NO CURRENT COST.

Based on your criteria and the current cost to the team, it was a no brainer. I have as much capacity to evaluate as the star's writer does, but my opinion wouldn't sell papers + fans like you expect success 100% of the time although its proven time and again (even with your criteria) that no team is ever 100% successful with their personnel decision. No one. Ever. So, you play the odds and the values, and based on those things (especially using your criteria), there is no doubt this was a worthwhile gamble.

TP - I accept that Richardson had a bad season and in hindsight and based on that information alone, it doesn't look like a good decision. I've said that.

RESPONSE: Would you make the same trade today, Gomez? Yes or No?

But given your criteria, the colts had about a 25% chance to select a successful player. A 25% chance of a successful pick vs. the possiblility that Richardson would pan out AND they got him for 90% of 2013 at NO CURRENT COST.

RESPONSE: And there's a 100% chance that you are delusional.

Based on your criteria and the current cost to the team, it was a no brainer. I have as much capacity to evaluate as the star's writer does, but my opinion wouldn't sell papers + fans like you expect success 100% of the time although its proven time and again (even with your criteria) that no team is ever 100% successful with their personnel decision. No one. Ever. So, you play the odds and the values, and based on those things (especially using your criteria), there is no doubt this was a worthwhile gamble.

RESPONSE: A GM is paid to be right, not to make "good gambles". Face it my friend...Grigson didn't do his homework on this one. He disregarded the red flags that were out in Cleveland on Richardson, and grossly overpaid for him.

I simply think that the Colts see something in him, and acknowledge they need an OL upgrade before they close anything on TR. To call this a collosal blunder is absurd. TR was with out question the top rated RB in his draft, and deserving of his first round grade. He is counting against the cap this year at $2.2M, certainly a worthwhile gamble.

It is also kind of funny with all of the draft mistakes the Pats have made with high draft choices, and a reluctance to part ways with those mistakes (Bequette, Wilson, RasI, to namke a few) that this fan base calls out the Colts. It seems this fan base indicates that it is ok for BB to miss on some choices, as the team is winning 12 games per year. But it is not ok for the Colts to miss, even though they are winning 11 per year.

TP - I accept that Richardson had a bad season and in hindsight and based on that information alone, it doesn't look like a good decision. I've said that.

RESPONSE: Would you make the same trade today, Gomez? Yes or No?

Let me use your comment. I don't accept the premise. Today, the season is over. Today, the colts have all options at their disposal and no games to play. The appropriate question is "would I have made the same trade at the time the colts made it?" That answer is yes. And that is all that matters.

Would the pats have waited until the 6th round to pick Tom Brady knowing what they know today? How about Chad Jackson? I can go on. Stop monday morning quarterbacking. It's petty.

But given your criteria, the colts had about a 25% chance to select a successful player. A 25% chance of a successful pick vs. the possiblility that Richardson would pan out AND they got him for 90% of 2013 at NO CURRENT COST.

RESPONSE: And there's a 100% chance that you are delusional.

Translation: you got me again, UD6.

Based on your criteria and the current cost to the team, it was a no brainer. I have as much capacity to evaluate as the star's writer does, but my opinion wouldn't sell papers + fans like you expect success 100% of the time although its proven time and again (even with your criteria) that no team is ever 100% successful with their personnel decision. No one. Ever. So, you play the odds and the values, and based on those things (especially using your criteria), there is no doubt this was a worthwhile gamble.

RESPONSE: A GM is paid to be right, not to make "good gambles". Face it my friend...Grigson didn't do his homework on this one. He disregarded the red flags that were out in Cleveland on Richardson, and grossly overpaid for him.

If, based on your criteria, only 1 in 4 picks taken from 26-32 ever result in a successful pick, then that means GM's are wrong 75% of the time with these picks and Grigson's gamble was not all that risky especially considering that Richardson played 14 games in 2013 without any cost but salary to the team. that's like playing for free.

do you consider every gm in the league a failure? if not who isn't and why aren't they?

TP - I accept that Richardson had a bad season and in hindsight and based on that information alone, it doesn't look like a good decision. I've said that.

RESPONSE: Would you make the same trade today, Gomez? Yes or No?

Let me use your comment. I don't accept the premise. Today, the season is over. Today, the colts have all options at their disposal and no games to play. The appropriate question is "would I have made the same trade at the time the colts made it?" That answer is yes. And that is all that matters.

Would the pats have waited until the 6th round to pick Tom Brady knowing what they know today? How about Chad Jackson? I can go on. Stop monday morning quarterbacking. It's petty.

RESPONSE LOL!!! What a wuss. Yes or no, Gomez??

But given your criteria, the colts had about a 25% chance to select a successful player. A 25% chance of a successful pick vs. the possiblility that Richardson would pan out AND they got him for 90% of 2013 at NO CURRENT COST.

RESPONSE: And there's a 100% chance that you are delusional.

Translation: you got me again, UD6.

RESPONSE: Again, you're delusional, Gomez!

Based on your criteria and the current cost to the team, it was a no brainer. I have as much capacity to evaluate as the star's writer does, but my opinion wouldn't sell papers + fans like you expect success 100% of the time although its proven time and again (even with your criteria) that no team is ever 100% successful with their personnel decision. No one. Ever. So, you play the odds and the values, and based on those things (especially using your criteria), there is no doubt this was a worthwhile gamble.

RESPONSE: A GM is paid to be right, not to make "good gambles". Face it my friend...Grigson didn't do his homework on this one. He disregarded the red flags that were out in Cleveland on Richardson, and grossly overpaid for him.

If, based on your criteria, only 1 in 4 picks taken from 26-32 ever result in a successful pick, then that means GM's are wrong 75% of the time with these picks and Grigson's gamble was not all that risky especially considering that Richardson played 14 games in 2013 without any cost but salary to the team. that's like playing for free.

do you consider every gm in the league a failure? if not who isn't and why aren't they?

RESPONSE: Nice try, Gomez. Baseball players who bat and fail 3 out of 10 times are considered superstars. GMs who consistently fail...or fail to build a winning team, get fired (unless we're talking about Jerry Jones...LOL!!!) I'm not saying that Grigson is a failure. I'm saying that he made a serious mistake in pulling off this bogus trade. Do you agree that this trade was a mistake? Yes or no?

TP - I accept that Richardson had a bad season and in hindsight and based on that information alone, it doesn't look like a good decision. I've said that.

RESPONSE: Would you make the same trade today, Gomez? Yes or No?

Let me use your comment. I don't accept the premise. Today, the season is over. Today, the colts have all options at their disposal and no games to play. The appropriate question is "would I have made the same trade at the time the colts made it?" That answer is yes. And that is all that matters.

Would the pats have waited until the 6th round to pick Tom Brady knowing what they know today? How about Chad Jackson? I can go on. Stop monday morning quarterbacking. It's petty.

RESPONSE LOL!!! What a wuss. Yes or no, Gomez?? Poor guy. You've been outed for your bias. Base the question on when the decision was made not after the results are in.

But given your criteria, the colts had about a 25% chance to select a successful player. A 25% chance of a successful pick vs. the possiblility that Richardson would pan out AND they got him for 90% of 2013 at NO CURRENT COST.

RESPONSE: And there's a 100% chance that you are delusional. Translation: you are right, UD6.

Translation: you got me again, UD6.

RESPONSE: Again, you're delusional, Gomez!Translation: you are right UD6.

Based on your criteria and the current cost to the team, it was a no brainer. I have as much capacity to evaluate as the star's writer does, but my opinion wouldn't sell papers + fans like you expect success 100% of the time although its proven time and again (even with your criteria) that no team is ever 100% successful with their personnel decision. No one. Ever. So, you play the odds and the values, and based on those things (especially using your criteria), there is no doubt this was a worthwhile gamble.

RESPONSE: A GM is paid to be right, not to make "good gambles". Face it my friend...Grigson didn't do his homework on this one. He disregarded the red flags that were out in Cleveland on Richardson, and grossly overpaid for him.

If, based on your criteria, only 1 in 4 picks taken from 26-32 ever result in a successful pick, then that means GM's are wrong 75% of the time with these picks and Grigson's gamble was not all that risky especially considering that Richardson played 14 games in 2013 without any cost but salary to the team. that's like playing for free.

do you consider every gm in the league a failure? if not who isn't and why aren't they?

RESPONSE: Nice try, Gomez. Baseball players who bat and fail 3 out of 10 times are considered superstars. GMs who consistently fail...or fail to build a winning team, get fired (unless we're talking about Jerry Jones...LOL!!!) I'm not saying that Grigson is a failure. I'm saying that he made a serious mistake in pulling off this bogus trade. Do you agree that this trade was a mistake? Yes or no?

Adios, Gomez!

In response, using your words: "You wuss", answer my questions. I've already told you I don't think the trade was a mistake. Why do you keep asking? Do you think I'll change my answer? Now - Answer my questions.

Finally, you are saying Grigson is not a failure but you said a GM is paid to be right. You are saying he wasn't right about Richardson. So, your statements contradict one another.

If you'd answered my questions, we might get somewhere but you are deflecting. Either Grigson is a failure or your statement about GM's being paid to be right is false. which is it?

In response, using your words: "You wuss", answer my questions. I've already told you I don't think the trade was a mistake. Why do you keep asking? Do you think I'll change my answer? Now - Answer my questions.

RESPONSE: You have still failed to answer my question. My question wasn't whether you thought the Richardson deal was a good trade. My question was whether you, if you were the GM, would make the same deal today, knowing what you now know about what a stiff Richardson really is?

Finally, you are saying Grigson is not a failure but you said a GM is paid to be right. You are saying he wasn't right about Richardson. So, your statements contradict one another.

RESPONSE: Wrongo. There you go again, trying to change the focus of the discussion. It's a trick that you commonly use when you know that you've lost the arument. First off, I've never said that Grigson was a failure. Obviously, a GM isn't a "failure" because he makes one bad decision. But, if he makes another terrible decision like the Richrdson move, his job may be in jeopardy...because GMs are paid to get it right. Nice try, Gomez.

If you'd answered my questions, we might get somewhere but you are deflecting. Either Grigson is a failure or your statement about GM's being paid to be right is false. which is it?

RESPONSE: Grigson is not a failure because of one bad decision. But, in my view, he is getting too much credit for the Colts turnaround after they tanked the 2011 season. Grigson lucked into getting Luck...no skill there. Luck was the best QB prospect to come out of college since Mr. Wonderful. Luck was the main reason for the Colts turnaround.

There you have it, Gomez. Now run off and go play your little word twisting games with Pugsley and Uncle Fester. LOL!!!

In response, using your words: "You wuss", answer my questions. I've already told you I don't think the trade was a mistake. Why do you keep asking? Do you think I'll change my answer? Now - Answer my questions.

RESPONSE: You have still failed to answer my question. My question wasn't whether you thought the Richardson deal was a good trade. My question was whether you, if you were the GM, would make the same deal today, knowing what you now know about what a stiff Richardson really is?

And my answer is why should anyone care? Playing monday morning quarterback is the biggest wuss move there is. Would the pats have waited to draft Tom Brady in the 6th if they knew then what they know now? Would the pats have given Aaron Hernandez an extension if they knew then what they know now?

If I only consider the trade as of now then I don't get the benefit of the year he had with the colts at no cost other than rookie salary. You want to eliminate all of that value from consideration. You can't because he played and the team won 11 games including a playoff game and he was a contributing factor. Stop with the wussy monday morning quartebacking TP. I thought you were better than that.

Finally, you are saying Grigson is not a failure but you said a GM is paid to be right. You are saying he wasn't right about Richardson. So, your statements contradict one another.

RESPONSE: Wrongo. There you go again, trying to change the focus of the discussion. It's a trick that you commonly use when you know that you've lost the arument. First off, I've never said that Grigson was a failure. Obviously, a GM isn't a "failure" because he makes one bad decision. But, if he makes another terrible decision like the Richrdson move, his job may be in jeopardy...because GMs are paid to get it right. Nice try, Gomez.

You said GM's are paid to be right. The fact is that GM's are never always right so your statement is factually wrong, and now you are backtracking about Grigson.

Questions:

How can the current exec of the year be in jeopardy of losing his job when his team goes 11-5 and wins a playoff game 2 years from being 2-14?

How can the current exec of the year be in jeopardy of losing his job when he makes a trade for a player with a future draft pick that by your standards is successful only 25% of the time? If the player has a favorable track record and fills an immediate team need, then it appears to me to be a gamble worth taking. Given your criteria, why doesn't it appear to be a gamble worth taking when the deal was made?

If you'd answered my questions, we might get somewhere but you are deflecting. Either Grigson is a failure or your statement about GM's being paid to be right is false. which is it?

RESPONSE: Grigson is not a failure because of one bad decision. But, in my view, he is getting too much credit for the Colts turnaround after they tanked the 2011 season. Grigson lucked into getting Luck...no skill there. Luck was the best QB prospect to come out of college since Mr. Wonderful. Luck was the main reason for the Colts turnaround.

An assumption that they tanked the season would suggest that there was loads of talent on the team that should have resulted in a much better record. That Grigson has turned over approximately 80% of the roster refutes that assumption entirely. Only 5 of 22 primary starters were on the team in 2013 that were on the team in 2011. Not only was the staff turned over, but so was the entire front office AND the coaching staff.

Luck does have much to do with the colts turnaround. He's got a bright future, but he hasn't been spectacular. In 2012 he was 26th in passer rating, 31st in completion %, and had the 2nd highest number of Ints among starting QB's. Last year, he was 18th in passer rating, 24th in completion %, but was much better at not throwing Ints.

The fact is that Grigson's ability to turnover the roster so dramatically while being competitive - even amidst the coaching turmoil in 2012 with Pagano's cancer - is nothing short of remarkable.

The fact that the colts had 5 different primary starters on offense and 6 on defense from 2012 to 2013 tells you that Grigson didn't rest. He was still re-tooling the team, and although there was such dramatic change - including a complete offensive system change - tells you enough that you need to know about Grigson's value.

As I've said, the Richardson deal may not work. It certainly doesn't look good with the hindsight of one year, but the jury is still out, and Grigson's really really solid work is not at all tainted if it doesn't. You aren't really gambling with a pick that is successful only 1 out of 4 times (your standard).

Frankly, as you've defined it, it may actually be one of the least valuable picks there is. The cost combined with the lack of success that it produces tells me that it ought to be traded.

There you have it, Gomez. Now run off and go play your little word twisting games with Pugsley and Uncle Fester. LOL!!!

Always look forward to your hindsight analysis. Thanks for the comedy. Hey TP, do you think the pats would have taken Brady in the 6th if they knew what they know now? Do you think the pats would have paid Hernandez $40 mill if they knew then what they know now. Do you think Belichick's job is in jeopardy for such egregious mistakes? What about going for it on 4th and 2 or having Gronkowski block on PAT's? Surely coaches are paid to be right too, right? LOL. Belichick must be sweatin heavy based on your keen MMQB'ing.